On 3/23/21 12:10 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:00:00PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
Syncpoints don't need to be associated with any client,
so remove the property, and expose host1x_syncpt_alloc.
This will allow allocating syncpoints without prior knowledge
of the engine that it will be used with.
Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3:
* Clean up host1x_syncpt_alloc signature to allow specifying
a name for the syncpoint.
* Export the function.
---
drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.h | 1 -
include/linux/host1x.h | 3 +++
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
index fce7892d5137..5982fdf64e1c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/syncpt.c
@@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ static void host1x_syncpt_base_free(struct host1x_syncpt_base *base)
base->requested = false;
}
-static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
- struct host1x_client *client,
- unsigned long flags)
+struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
+ unsigned long flags,
+ const char *name)
If we expose it publicly, it's a good idea to add kerneldoc.
Will fix.
{
struct host1x_syncpt *sp = host->syncpt;
+ char *full_name;
unsigned int i;
- char *name;
mutex_lock(&host->syncpt_mutex);
@@ -64,13 +64,11 @@ static struct host1x_syncpt *host1x_syncpt_alloc(struct host1x *host,
goto unlock;
}
- name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%02u-%s", sp->id,
- client ? dev_name(client->dev) : NULL);
- if (!name)
+ full_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%u-%s", sp->id, name);
+ if (!full_name)
I know this just keeps with the status quo, but I wonder if we should
change this to be just "%u" if name == NULL to avoid a weird-looking
name. Or perhaps we want to enforce name != NULL by failing if that's
not the case?
I'll see about making the name mandatory.
Thierry
Mikko
